The present research examines how hiring committees strategically use language abstraction to collectively account for their decision to hire a job applicant over the others. In addition, the authors investigate how work interdependence between single members of hiring committees and applicants and common affiliation to the same work organization affect the language used to write individual reports on job candidates. Results of the first study show that selected applicants were described with positive terms at a higher level of abstraction and negative terms at a lower level of abstraction. The second study supports the selection linguistic bias in individually written reports and demonstrates that members of hiring committees describe interdependent applicants and those belonging to their group with negative terms at a lower level of abstraction than other applicants. The implications of the findings for the wider personnel selection context are discussed.
Anderson, N., & Goltsi, V. (2006). Negative psychological effects of selection methods: Construct formulation and an empirical investigation into an assessment centre . International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 236-247.
2.
Campion, M.A., Palmer, D.K., & Campion, J.E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview . Personnel Psychology, 50, 655-702.
3.
De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 628-638.
4.
DePoot, C.J., & Semin, G.R. (1995). Pick your verbs with care when you formulate a question!Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 351-368.
5.
Dixon, M., Wang, S., Calvin, J., Dineen, B., & Tomlinson, E. (2002). The panel interview: A review of empirical research and guidelines for practice. Public Personnel Management, 31, 397-427.
6.
Douglas, K.M., & Sutton, R.M. (2003). Effects of communication goals and expectancies on language abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 682-629.
7.
Follette, V., & Klesges, R.C. (1988). Academic employment: A longitudinal study of the recruiting process and hired applicants. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 345-348.
8.
Ford, J.K., Kraiger, K., & Schechtman, S.L. (1986). Study of race effects in objective indices and subjective evaluations of performance: A meta-analysis of performance criteria. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 330-337.
9.
Franco, F., & Maass, A. (1996). Implicit vs. explicit strategies of intergroup discrimination: The role of intentional control in biased language use and reward allocation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 15, 335-359.
10.
Gil de Montes, L.G., Semin, G.R., & Valencia, J.F. (2003). Communication patterns in interdependent relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 259-281.
11.
Heilman, M.E., Martell, R.F., & Simon, M.C. (1988). The vagaries of sex bias: Conditions regulating the undervaluation, equivaluation, and overevaluation of female job applicants . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 98-110.
12.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Stanne, D.W. (1989). Impact of goal and resource interdependence on problem-solving success. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 621-629.
13.
Jones, E.E., & Davis, K.E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 220-266). New York: Academic Press.
14.
Larson, J.R., Foster-Fishman, P.G., & Keys, C.B. (1994). Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 446-461.
15.
Maass, A. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 79-121). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
16.
Maass, A., Corvino, P., & Arcuri, L. (1994). Linguistic intergroup bias and the mass media . Revue de Psychologie Sociale, 1, 31-43.
17.
Marlowe, C.M., Schneider, S.L., & Nelson, C.E. (1996). Gender and attractiveness biases in hiring decisions: Are more experiences manager less biased? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 11-21.
18.
Menegatti, M., & Rubini, M. (2006, June). Linguistic bias in the political arena: Convincing supporters and opponents. Paper presented at the Kent Workshop on Linguistic Bias, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
19.
Menegatti, M., & Rubini, M. (2007). A chi parliamo? Di cosa parliamo? Il ruolo dell'astrazione linguistica nella comunicazione politica [Whom do we talk to? What do we talk about? The role of linguistic abstraction in political communication]. Psicologia Sociale, 3, 201-522.
20.
Ng, S.H., & Tait, J. (1994). Biases in journalists' linguistics representation of intergroup events. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
21.
Perlman, B., Marxen, J.C., McFadden, S., & McCann, L. (1996). Applicants for a faculty position do not emphasize teaching. Teaching of Psychology , 23, 103-104.
22.
Rubini, M., & Kruglanski, A.W. (1997). Brief encounters ending in estrangement: Motivated language use and interpersonal rapport in the question-answer paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1047-1060.
23.
Rubini, M., Moscatelli, S., Albarello, F., & Palmonari, A. (2007). Group power as a determinant of interdependence and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1203-1221.
24.
Rubini, M., & Sigall, H. (2002). Taking the edge off of disagreement: Linguistic abstractness and self-presentation to a heterogeneous audience. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 343-352.
25.
Scalise, S. (1995). La formazione delle parole [The formation of words] . In L. Renzi, G. Salvi, & A. Cardinale (Eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione (Vol. 8, pp. 471-514). Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino.
26.
Schmid, J., & Fiedler, K. (1998). The backbone of closing speeches: The impact of prosecution versus defence language on juridical attribution. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1140-1172.
27.
Schmid, J., Fiedler, K., Englich, B., Ehrenberg, T., & Semin, G.R. (1996). Taking sides with the defendant: Grammatical choice and the influence o implicit attributions in prosecution and defence speeches . International Journal of Psycholinguistic, 12, 127-148.
28.
Semin, G.R. (1994). The linguistic category model and personality language. In J. Siegfried (Ed.), The status of common sense in psychology (pp. 305-321). Norwood, NJ : Ablex.
29.
Semin, G.R. (2007). Linguistic markers of social distance and proximity . In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 389-408). New York: Psychology Press.
30.
Semin, G.R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive function of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558-568.
31.
Semin, G.R., & Fiedler, K. (1991). The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-30). Chichester , UK: Wiley.
32.
Semin, G.R., & Fiedler, K. (1992). The configuration of social interaction in interpersonal terms. In G. R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 58-78). London: Sage.
33.
Semin, G.R., Fiedler, K., Maass, A., & Arcuri, L. (1989). The properties of derived trait terms and behavior trait inferences as a function of verb category membership. Unpublished manuscript.
34.
Semin, G.R., & Marsman, G.J. (1994). "Multiple inference inviting properties" of interpersonal verbs: Event instigation, dispositional inference and implicit causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 836-849.
35.
Semin, G.R., Rubini, M., & Fiedler, K. (1995). The answer is in the question: The effect of verb causality on locus of explanation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 834-842.
36.
Sheehan, E.P., McDevitt, T.M., & Ross, H.C. (1998). Looking for a job as a psychology professor? Factors affecting applicant success. Teaching of Psychology, 25, 8-11.
37.
Stroebe, K., Spears, R., & Lodewijkx, H. (2007). Contrasting and integrating social identity and interdependence approaches to intergroup discrimination in the minimal group paradigm. In K. Van Den Bos, J. B. De Wit, M. Hewstone , H. A. W. Schut, & M. S. Stroebe (Eds.), The scope of social psychology: Theory and applications (pp. 173-190). New York: Psychology Press.
38.
Tjosvold, D. (1998). Making employee involvement work: Cooperative goals and controversy to reduce costs. Human Relations, 51, 201-214.
39.
Vroom, V.H., & Jago, A.G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. New York: Prentice Hall.
40.
Watson, B., & Gallois, C. (2002). Patients' interactions with health providers: A linguistic category model approach. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 35-52.
41.
Wigboldus, D.H.J., & Douglas, K.M. (2007). Language, stereotypes, and intergroup relations . In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 79-106). New York: Psychology Press.
42.
Wittenbaum, G.M., & Stasser, G. (1998). The re-evaluation of information during group discussion. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1, 21-34.
